From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:46:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210125114623.GY3592@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31300317-89e0-ca5e-d095-920c6cfe8704@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:37:55PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > It's interesting that patch 3 would make any difference on x64 given that
> > it's SMT2. The scan depth should have been similar. It's somewhat expected
> > that it will not be a universal win, particularly once the utilisation
> > is high enough to spill over in sched domains (25%, 50%, 75% utilisation
> > being interesting on 4-socket systems). In such cases, double scanning can
> > still show improvements for workloads that idle rapidly like tbench and
> > hackbench even though it's expensive. The extra scanning gives more time
> > for a CPU to go idle enough to be selected which can improve throughput
> > but at the cost of wake-up latency,
>
> aha, sorry for the confusion. Since you and Vincent discussed to drop
> patch3, I just mentioned I tested 5 patches with patch3, not patch3 alone.
>
Ah, that makes more sense.
> >
> > Hopefully v4 can be tested as well which is now just a single scan.
> >
>
> Sure, may I know the baseline of v4?
>
5.11-rc4.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-26 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-19 11:22 [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under SIS_PROP Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Make select_idle_cpu() proportional to cores Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched/fair: Remove select_idle_smt() Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched/fair: Merge select_idle_core/cpu() Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 8:30 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-01-20 9:12 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 9:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-20 9:54 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 9:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-20 13:55 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-01-19 11:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Vincent Guittot
2021-01-19 12:02 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 9:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 10:14 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 13:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 4:29 ` Li, Aubrey
2021-01-25 9:04 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-25 11:37 ` Li, Aubrey
2021-01-25 11:46 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210125114623.GY3592@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).